Smoke emissions are harmful to all-no matter where you live!
YORKREGION.COM…is a community website serving residents and businesses of York Region. Ontario, Canada
What Do You Think
Jul 23, 2007 03:33 PM
Readers debate fire ban
What do you think about banning recreational and open air fires in built-up areas where lot sizes are smaller?
(Excerpts from some of the pro-ban replies)
You responded:
We have called the fire chief numerous times about smoke from fires on weekends. They also burn garbage and foam. It’s so bad, we have to go out for the day. We can’t breathe. It’s funny no one can smoke, but we have to put up with this. Why is that?
GORDON EDGECOMB
Georgina
II think that this is a great idea. I have a young baby that has potential for asthma and allergies. Many times just trying to play in our back yard we have been smoked out by neighbours constantly burning. If they were just burning yard waste, would they need to burn almost everyday? Not to mention there is a lot of yard waste that people shouldn’t burn and probably aren’t even aware of these dangers. I definitely agree that it is time to make some changes.
BONNIE LEITCH
Georgina
I have asthma and every weekend night we have to close up all of our windows and run the air conditioner due to the many backyard fires in our subdivision. Otherwise I have a lot of trouble breathing. The fires, many close to fences and trees, may set them on fire furthering harming nature. I have also observed burning of garbage during the week and, when mowing the lawn (with my rechargeable battery operated mower) I had to stop as the fumes were so bad. During that fire, I also got ashes on my arm blown over from his fire and bits of his credit card statements half burnt blew at me. Disgusting. We have garbage pickup and recycling in this town. I would welcome restrictions on fires in built up areas.
DEEANN GONSALVES
Georgina
I think all fires within town limits should be banned as it affects the air quality and those who are sensitive to it.
CORINNA EU
Georgina
We live on Hollywood Drive. I have asthma and have been forced to call the fire department twice. The second time, our neighbour let the fire smolder all night. No fine was issued and the fire pit it 10 to 15 feet from my house. We have a bylaw officer who manages to ticket everybody in town if they’re parked in the wrong space, so why can’t this person ticket someone burning without a permit. These inconsiderate people make it hard on people who just want a small fire late in the evening. This guy burns during the day. Who do I call now since the fire department has not stopped the problem?
CATHY WEILER
Georgina
Many times we are forced to close our windows during the cooler evenings and use the air conditioning as the smell from the fires permeates our home. It gets right into one’s clothing. I would like to see recreational and open-air fires in built-up areas banned.
ALBERT HOBDEN
Georgina
Most definitely ban all fires. Give out permits for special nights people want a bonfire. I pay my taxes and should not have to hide out in my home because of asthma and one ignorant neighbour who, by the way, was asked politely to put out his fire on numerous occasions. One wrecks it for all.
CATHY CLUGSTON
Georgina
I think there should definitely be restrictions, not just for subdivisions but for general residential streets also. It is very frustrating when you have to bring in your laundry to rewash it or not allow your kids to go outside to play because one of your neighbours is burning and the smoke is so thick. It’s about just having plain respect for your neighbours, which unfortunately alot of people don’t these days. The town does need to change the bylaws.
WENDY CULLINGHAM
Georgina
Great idea, long overdue. Let’s air our laundry, rather than having to launder our air.
DEB WILSON
Richmond Hill
I believe there should be a complete ban on recreational and open-air fires in all areas. There is absolutely no reason to burn. Most people who burning are burning their garbage. Open-air burning causes an excessive number of fire runs that are not required. Burning complaints are a waste of valuable resources.
JACK SEXTON
Georgina
I do not appreciate open air fires (or even anyone using wood in their in-home fireplaces) as I suffer from asthma. When my neighbour lights up his chiminea, I cannot leave my windows open on a cool night as the smoke chokes me up. Another neighbour uses a wood-burning fireplace and when I’m shoveling snow in the winter, it chokes me up as well. Many don’t realize the effects of burning wood.
RITA ZUCCARO
Vaughan
Note...Web site---yorkregion.com
Benefits of A Permanent Burn Ban
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
---"Benefits of A Permanent Burn Ban"—
A burn ban could assure that when smoke is noticed, it gets quick attention and is stopped, not regulated. When burn bans are in place firemen admit the response time is quicker, saving lives and property. A fireman in Macon, Ga. suffered an accidental death while responding to a neighborhood trash burn that got out of hand.
Regulations have not worked to clear the air. They have allowed a smoke screen for polluters to quickly burn the evidence of toxic materials right under our noses.
I believe most everyone will support an alternative to burning trash in our neighborhoods. The benefits are obvious: greater health, longer life, and more mulch for our gardens.
There is so much pollution from so many sources the least we should expect from our leaders is a permanent burn ban to protect our homes from toxic smoke invasion
Louis Lowery
Certified Master Gardener
http://gardenersview.com/
A burn ban could assure that when smoke is noticed, it gets quick attention and is stopped, not regulated. When burn bans are in place firemen admit the response time is quicker, saving lives and property. A fireman in Macon, Ga. suffered an accidental death while responding to a neighborhood trash burn that got out of hand.
Regulations have not worked to clear the air. They have allowed a smoke screen for polluters to quickly burn the evidence of toxic materials right under our noses.
I believe most everyone will support an alternative to burning trash in our neighborhoods. The benefits are obvious: greater health, longer life, and more mulch for our gardens.
There is so much pollution from so many sources the least we should expect from our leaders is a permanent burn ban to protect our homes from toxic smoke invasion
Louis Lowery
Certified Master Gardener
http://gardenersview.com/
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts
The air we all have to breathe is being destroyed due to wood smoke emissions and our health suffers…….(http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm)
February 2004
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts,
I first began complaining to health officials about wood smoke from residential wood burning in January 1999 when my neighbors who burn wood were unwilling to respond to my concerns about the wood smoke that I was being exposed to. Smoke was coming into my home, onto my property and into the air in my neighborhood, often forcing me back into my house because the wall of smoke was so thick. One neighbor told me I should move; another put out a no trespassing order on me; the third agreed to only burn wood, not trash, in his stove. All three of these neighbors are within 150 feet of my house and I am downwind of all of them. All were confident that they were perfectly within their rights and acted as though there was nothing I could do about the fact that their wood burning was disturbing me.
I called the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Health. I also spoke with people at the BOH in Northampton, where there are wood smoke regulations, and read extensively about the laws governing Boards of Health in Massachusetts. Various people at DEP were quite sympathetic, and agreed with me that wood smoke is air pollution. But those I talked with have stated that there is no intention at this time for DEP to regulate wood burning, even though it is regulated in other states and municipalities. I concluded that the only help for someone in my situation was through the BOH, which has statutory authority to abate nuisances and regulate matters affecting public health including air pollution.
When I looked into the health effects of wood smoke I was surprised at the volume of information that was available. I learned that an average wood stove produces 500 times as much particulate air pollution as a well-tuned oil burner per hour, and 1000 times more than a gas burner. Wood smoke contains dioxin, a well known carcinogen. Wood ash from wood stoves in New England is often radioactive because above-ground nuclear testing that took place 50 years ago deposited radiation in this part of the country. The EPA estimates that at similar exposures, wood smoke is about 12 times as carcinogenic as secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the free radicals from cigarette smoke remain in a person's system for 30 seconds, while those from wood smoke act for 20 minutes. Toxicology and epidemiological studies overwhelmingly conclude that wood smoke is harmful to people's health, especially in sensitive populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and those with existing heart or lung problems.
In the presence of wood smoke, I have experienced chest pain and tightness, chronic sinus infections and other symptoms. These are average, predictable responses as reported in the literature. When I am not being exposed to wood smoke, I don't have these health problems. However, when I reported my concerns to the Buckland BOH, it refused to take any action to help me. My understanding of the BOH's reasoning in refusing to address this problem is that, first of all, wood smoke does not harm anyone's health except for mine. They believe that asking people to curtail their wood burning is unfair, even outrageous, because wood burning is a necessity and a way of life. They are afraid that challenging the practice of residential wood burning would interfere with people's privacy rights. Some people, the BOH believes, have no choice but to harvest wood from their property to heat their homes. It would be unfair to ask people in one neighborhood, such as a densely populated area, to curtail burning, while allowing others to continue to burn. The BOH's arguments focus on the supposed environmental, political and financial advantages to heating with wood. But when a Board of Health does not recognize wood smoke as a health hazard, it cannot fulfill its function of protecting the public's health.
I cannot remember anyone burning wood in the town of Greenfield where I lived for the first 19 years of my life. Maybe wood burning is a "way of life," but ways of life come and go; air pollution is air pollution regardless of its source. I have not found anything to suggest that wood smoke is exempted from the nuisance law. It is my understanding that the open burning law is also predicated on the idea that wood smoke is a health hazard. When my BOH refuses to consider wood smoke a nuisance and/or a health hazard, instead choosing to protect my neighbor's "right" to burn, the BOH fails to consider the impact that these activities have on the rights of others.
The practical outcome for me of the BOH's refusal to tackle the wood smoke problem has included the necessity of leaving my house completely for two winters because the smoke inside my house was so severe that I feared for my health and safety. Now I spend hundreds of dollars a year on air filters in an attempt to reduce my exposure inside my home, leave my home and stay elsewhere whenever I can, and avoid walking in my neighborhood in the evening because the smoke is often very thick. During the colder months, while people heat with wood, I have had to keep my windows closed to keep smoke from coming into my house, creating a situation where "fresh air" in my home is not a possibility. I may be forced to sell my home and move, and I know that there are others across the State in similar or worse situations.
The reasons that many people give for heating their homes with wood instead of with a cleaner fuel are typically that wood is a renewable resource; it is a more environmentally sound method of supplying energy than the production of fuel oil or natural gas; and it will help Americans be less dependent on foreign oil. After spending the last six years suffering the effects of wood smoke air pollution for eight months a year, I have to seriously question whether wood burning is a acceptable way of achieving these goals, especially in densely populated areas. There are other strategies we can use to reduce negative impacts associated with our energy use.
The cost of heating with wood is comparable to heating with oil, and in past years has been even more expensive. I am confident that lower income residents can be given access to cleaner fuels instead of being allowed or encouraged to pollute their own air and their neighbors' air. Wood burning contributes to poor air quality inside the homes in which it is occurring.
The BOH in Buckland has agreed to engage in education on this issue. This is a worthwhile and important thing that the Board can do. But the majority of this Board has said that there will be no consequences for those who continue to burn, even if complaints are lodged against them. I am concerned that, as long as this type of air pollution remains legally acceptable, it will continue to exist and the public health will remain unprotected.
I have personally spoken with others in Massachusetts with similar complaints. Amherst and Northampton have opacity regulations for wood stoves. I know that some Boards deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have been able to convince the wood burner to stop burning. I also know of a number of people who complained to their Boards and have gotten similar responses to those I have described here. We are left with difficult choices when our Boards choose not to help us. We can move, and run the risk that we will be faced with the same problem in our next home. We can stay and continue to try to influence our neighbors, our Boards and other lawmakers, or go to court with expensive private nuisance complaints. Or we can suffer in silence. Unfortunately, this last option is the most common response. I know of a number of people in Franklin County who are adversely affected by inhaling wood smoke but who are unwilling to complain about it for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they believe there is nothing that can be done.
Where I live, there are at least twenty homes that burn wood on a regular basis within 2000 feet of my house, and I am downwind of most of them. About half of them moved into their homes and started burning wood since the time I first complained. The wood smoke problem is not getting better in Buckland. Wanting clean air to breathe is not a lifestyle choice, an aesthetic preference, a financial consideration or the special desire of very sensitive individuals. It is a necessity for health and well-being. Wood smoke is not a fact of life. It is the result of choosing to burn wood.
I am hoping that as BOH members, reading this letter will encourage you to look carefully at the research that has been done on particulate air pollution exposure and the legal authority that you are entrusted with, and take seriously the wood smoke complaints that come before you. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Boards of Health are our only protection (other than expensive, time-consuming private lawsuits) from this type of air pollution in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Janet Sinclair, Buckland Board of Health
http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm
February 2004
To Board of Health Members in Massachusetts,
I first began complaining to health officials about wood smoke from residential wood burning in January 1999 when my neighbors who burn wood were unwilling to respond to my concerns about the wood smoke that I was being exposed to. Smoke was coming into my home, onto my property and into the air in my neighborhood, often forcing me back into my house because the wall of smoke was so thick. One neighbor told me I should move; another put out a no trespassing order on me; the third agreed to only burn wood, not trash, in his stove. All three of these neighbors are within 150 feet of my house and I am downwind of all of them. All were confident that they were perfectly within their rights and acted as though there was nothing I could do about the fact that their wood burning was disturbing me.
I called the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Health. I also spoke with people at the BOH in Northampton, where there are wood smoke regulations, and read extensively about the laws governing Boards of Health in Massachusetts. Various people at DEP were quite sympathetic, and agreed with me that wood smoke is air pollution. But those I talked with have stated that there is no intention at this time for DEP to regulate wood burning, even though it is regulated in other states and municipalities. I concluded that the only help for someone in my situation was through the BOH, which has statutory authority to abate nuisances and regulate matters affecting public health including air pollution.
When I looked into the health effects of wood smoke I was surprised at the volume of information that was available. I learned that an average wood stove produces 500 times as much particulate air pollution as a well-tuned oil burner per hour, and 1000 times more than a gas burner. Wood smoke contains dioxin, a well known carcinogen. Wood ash from wood stoves in New England is often radioactive because above-ground nuclear testing that took place 50 years ago deposited radiation in this part of the country. The EPA estimates that at similar exposures, wood smoke is about 12 times as carcinogenic as secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the free radicals from cigarette smoke remain in a person's system for 30 seconds, while those from wood smoke act for 20 minutes. Toxicology and epidemiological studies overwhelmingly conclude that wood smoke is harmful to people's health, especially in sensitive populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and those with existing heart or lung problems.
In the presence of wood smoke, I have experienced chest pain and tightness, chronic sinus infections and other symptoms. These are average, predictable responses as reported in the literature. When I am not being exposed to wood smoke, I don't have these health problems. However, when I reported my concerns to the Buckland BOH, it refused to take any action to help me. My understanding of the BOH's reasoning in refusing to address this problem is that, first of all, wood smoke does not harm anyone's health except for mine. They believe that asking people to curtail their wood burning is unfair, even outrageous, because wood burning is a necessity and a way of life. They are afraid that challenging the practice of residential wood burning would interfere with people's privacy rights. Some people, the BOH believes, have no choice but to harvest wood from their property to heat their homes. It would be unfair to ask people in one neighborhood, such as a densely populated area, to curtail burning, while allowing others to continue to burn. The BOH's arguments focus on the supposed environmental, political and financial advantages to heating with wood. But when a Board of Health does not recognize wood smoke as a health hazard, it cannot fulfill its function of protecting the public's health.
I cannot remember anyone burning wood in the town of Greenfield where I lived for the first 19 years of my life. Maybe wood burning is a "way of life," but ways of life come and go; air pollution is air pollution regardless of its source. I have not found anything to suggest that wood smoke is exempted from the nuisance law. It is my understanding that the open burning law is also predicated on the idea that wood smoke is a health hazard. When my BOH refuses to consider wood smoke a nuisance and/or a health hazard, instead choosing to protect my neighbor's "right" to burn, the BOH fails to consider the impact that these activities have on the rights of others.
The practical outcome for me of the BOH's refusal to tackle the wood smoke problem has included the necessity of leaving my house completely for two winters because the smoke inside my house was so severe that I feared for my health and safety. Now I spend hundreds of dollars a year on air filters in an attempt to reduce my exposure inside my home, leave my home and stay elsewhere whenever I can, and avoid walking in my neighborhood in the evening because the smoke is often very thick. During the colder months, while people heat with wood, I have had to keep my windows closed to keep smoke from coming into my house, creating a situation where "fresh air" in my home is not a possibility. I may be forced to sell my home and move, and I know that there are others across the State in similar or worse situations.
The reasons that many people give for heating their homes with wood instead of with a cleaner fuel are typically that wood is a renewable resource; it is a more environmentally sound method of supplying energy than the production of fuel oil or natural gas; and it will help Americans be less dependent on foreign oil. After spending the last six years suffering the effects of wood smoke air pollution for eight months a year, I have to seriously question whether wood burning is a acceptable way of achieving these goals, especially in densely populated areas. There are other strategies we can use to reduce negative impacts associated with our energy use.
The cost of heating with wood is comparable to heating with oil, and in past years has been even more expensive. I am confident that lower income residents can be given access to cleaner fuels instead of being allowed or encouraged to pollute their own air and their neighbors' air. Wood burning contributes to poor air quality inside the homes in which it is occurring.
The BOH in Buckland has agreed to engage in education on this issue. This is a worthwhile and important thing that the Board can do. But the majority of this Board has said that there will be no consequences for those who continue to burn, even if complaints are lodged against them. I am concerned that, as long as this type of air pollution remains legally acceptable, it will continue to exist and the public health will remain unprotected.
I have personally spoken with others in Massachusetts with similar complaints. Amherst and Northampton have opacity regulations for wood stoves. I know that some Boards deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have been able to convince the wood burner to stop burning. I also know of a number of people who complained to their Boards and have gotten similar responses to those I have described here. We are left with difficult choices when our Boards choose not to help us. We can move, and run the risk that we will be faced with the same problem in our next home. We can stay and continue to try to influence our neighbors, our Boards and other lawmakers, or go to court with expensive private nuisance complaints. Or we can suffer in silence. Unfortunately, this last option is the most common response. I know of a number of people in Franklin County who are adversely affected by inhaling wood smoke but who are unwilling to complain about it for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they believe there is nothing that can be done.
Where I live, there are at least twenty homes that burn wood on a regular basis within 2000 feet of my house, and I am downwind of most of them. About half of them moved into their homes and started burning wood since the time I first complained. The wood smoke problem is not getting better in Buckland. Wanting clean air to breathe is not a lifestyle choice, an aesthetic preference, a financial consideration or the special desire of very sensitive individuals. It is a necessity for health and well-being. Wood smoke is not a fact of life. It is the result of choosing to burn wood.
I am hoping that as BOH members, reading this letter will encourage you to look carefully at the research that has been done on particulate air pollution exposure and the legal authority that you are entrusted with, and take seriously the wood smoke complaints that come before you. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Boards of Health are our only protection (other than expensive, time-consuming private lawsuits) from this type of air pollution in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Janet Sinclair, Buckland Board of Health
http://masscleanair.org/documents/letter.htm
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp-article
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper: published 2/10/96
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks BY ROBERT MATAS
Environment Reporter
Vancouver
OVER the Christmas holidays, the sleepy Okanagan Valley town of Valley town was covered with a layer of sparkling white snow Above it, hanging invisibly in the stagnant air, was a second layer of nasty pollutants.
During this period, smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces laced the air with contaminants, some so small they could pass directly into lungs The weather was "a classical episode" of pollution from residential woodburning, says Peter Reid, a regional airquality meteorologist with the B. C. government.
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but recent research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks "It's not an insignificant problem especially for those with respiratory difficulties, says Scott McDonald, executive director of the B.C Lung Association.
Clean air activists have been saying exactly that for the past 15 years. A study published in 1980 by John A. Cooper, titled Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions and Its Implications, described more than 100 chemicals associated with wood smoke, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde gas, nitrogen oxide, tiny particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Many of the pollutants are similar to those produced by burning tobacco, and some U.S researchers say breathing in wood smoke is comparable to inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke.
The threat to human health comes from the fine particulate matter tiny particles 200 times smaller than raindrops Several epidemiological studies have concluded that inhaling wood smoke particulate matter increases the incidence, duration and severity of respiratory disease, striking hardest at children, the elderly and those with lung or heart disorders.
Concerns over wood smoke in the mid eighties put a damper on residential wood burning in some areas. In the Colorado ski town of Telluride, for example, several air-quality-conscious homeowners went so far as to put legal restrictions on their property deeds that would require their heirs never to allow "solid fuelburning devices. on the property But most of North America was cold to the idea of putting controls on wood burning smoke. The Seattle region created smoke police to hand out tickets to polluters However, a recommendation from Vancouver's medical health officer to impose a ban on all woodburning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction was dismissed by a local alderman as "imbecilic" and rejected by city council.
John Blatherwick, Vancouver's medical health officer, proposed the failed ban on fireplaces and stoves in 1991. But despite ridicule by city aldermen, Dr. Blatherwick still holds the same views, and feels vindicated by a report on the health effects of wood smoke that was completed two years later for B. C.'s health officer.
The report, by Sverre Vedal an associate professor with the University of British Columbia's lungdiseases research unit, said studies show that children living in = affected by wood smoke have lower levels of lung function during and following the wood burning season. It also said children have lower lung function the day after exposure to high concentrations of wood smoke.
Researchers have found that fine particulate matter lodges in and alters lung tissue, increasing the incidents of respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress and aggravating asthma, particularly for children. Only particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter can be inhaled into the lung without being intercepted by the nose or pharynx and only these smaller particles pose a threat to the respiratory system.
Dr. Vedal says that almost all particles generated by wood combustion are smaller than 10 micrometers. Information on physician visits "strongly suggests" that woodsmoke exposure can increase the risk of respiratory illness.
He also reported some good news: There is little evidence that exposure to wood smoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person. [ See rebuttal to this point by Mary J. Rozenberg]
He cautioned that any attempt to estimate the health effects of wood smoke involves many assumptions. Generally speaking, he said, air has fewer than 50 micrograms of tiny particulate matter per cubic metre. With this benchmark Dr. Vedal decided to calculate the impact of a 50 micrograms-percubicmetre increase in tiny particulate matter due to wood smoke. The results showed that 25 per cent of children in the exposed population experienced a slight decrease in lung function; twice as many children experienced lower respiratory symptoms; four times as many were absent from school; and emergency visits for asthma increased by 20 percent.
About 400,000 Canadian homes use wood as the primary heating fuel, and many more use fireplaces and wood stoves as supplementary sources of heat or because they enjoy the aesthetics of wood burning.
Environment Canada meteorologist Fred Conway says pollution from residential woodburning is not high on the agenda in Ontario. Wood is not used widely as a fuel in the large urban areas, he says, and the smoke disperses quickly in rural regions.
The Atlantic provinces are more dependent on wood for home heating than else where, but it is in British Columbia that smoke from residential woodburning poses the greatest threat to health. Here, inversions in weather patterns frequently warm the air on mountainsides, trapping cooler air and smoke at ground level in valleys and allowing the concentration of pollutants to build up.
B. C. Hydro has estimated that about 100,000 homes in B. C. use wood as the primary fuel; an additional 200,000 use fireplaces and woodburning stoves occasionally, Several valley communities have air quality problems on cold, clear nights.
Vernon, a city of 31,000 located at the confluence of two valleys has among the highest concentration of fine particulate matter in the province, especially during the cold months, but scientists are still searching for a conclusive link to a source. Analysis of air quality samples from 1992 to 1994. though, found that the air quality is poor for at least 61 days a year.
Mr. Reid and other researchers say more work on air monitoring is necessary before conclusions can be drawn about Vernon. Meanwhile, in other woodburning areas, the impact of wood smoke may be mitigated by new wood stoves and fireplaces that ensure more complete combustion, which prevents unburnt gases from going up the chimney. More people are also using dried wood, which creates fewer pollutants.
Cleanair activists, however, say the research results are enough to allow regulatory agencies to set policies dealing with chronic exposure to wood smoke. The smoke may not be the largest source of pollutants in the atmosphere, activists say, but wintertime woodburning produces them right under people's noses.
Mary J. Rozenberg, a former New York cellist whose health is affected by wood smoke, lives in Point Arena, Calif., and is using the Internet to mobilize U.S. public opinion to push for a ban on woodburning in fireplaces and stoves. Her homepage, Burning Issues, carries references to articles and technical papers, including one of her own on inhalation toxicology.
Her paper presented the results of a study of airborne particulates smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, which were measured in a residential neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area. The study showed that particulate concentrations increased most rapidly in the early evening, with the highest concentrations occurring after 11 p.m.
Ms. Rozenberg concluded that the particulates were generated by nonindustrial, nonautomotive sources, and the most likely source was residential woodburning.
She says that when she started her research in 1991, everyone said there was no problem and I was nuts. But when they saw the charts, they were shocked how big wood pollution is"
WOODSMOKE EMISSIONS
* Indicates a chemical also found in cigarette smoke
Normal alkanes
Cyclic di and triterpenoids:
dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin
Chlorinated dioxins
*Carbon monoxide
Methane
*Aldehydes: formaldehyde, *acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural
Substituted furans
Benzene
Alkyl benzenes: toluene
Acetic acid, Formic acid
*Nitrogen oxides
*Sulphur dioxide,
Methyl chloride
Napthalene
Substituted napthalenes
Oxygenated monoaromatics: guaiacol and derivatives *phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives
*Particulate organic carbon
Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene ,
*pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, *benzo(e)pyrene, *benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene *coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Above table published with article
Rebuttal to claim that there is no link between wood smoke and cancer.
The Globe declined to publish this rebuttal.
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper
"Ah, Lovely wood smoke Wheeze, gasp" 2/10/96 by Robert Matas, Environmental
Writer, Vancouver
Letter to the Editor:
This letter was written by Mary Rozenberg to the Globe in an attempt to correct a glaring error made by Dr. Sverre Vedal. Unfortunately, the letter was never published by the paper.
Thank you for the excellent article by Robert Matas "Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, Gasp" on Feb. 10,1996.The article quotes Dr. Sverre Vedal where he incorrectly states that "there is little evidence that exposure to woodsmoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person." We now have more than 30 references linking wood smoke to increased cancer risk.Due to similar publication times these were most likely not available to Dr. Vedal at the time of his report.
One of the papers stating that woodsmoke causes cancer at North American concentrations is Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles #91131.6 , 1991, by Dr.Joellen Lewtas of the US EPA. Dr. Lewtas states "These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a woodstove for heating, followed by driving a diesel car." She lists 14 papers on the subject in her bibliography.
In a study, Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation, Chest 1993 researchers indicated that "findings raise the possibility of a cause-andeffect relationship between longterm woodsmoke inhalation and lung cancer. Given the mutagenic and airway irritant effects described for wood smoke (4 references given) we believe that this possible deleterious relationship needs to be addressed in future studies regarding risk factors for lung cancer in nonsmokers."
I have measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for several weeks. PAH are know cancer causing agents The exposure to PAH from woodburning was longer in duration than that from traffic and on many days it was also higher in the amount of the concentration. My study was published in Inhalation Toxicology is being followed by a current study by Dr. Wayne Ott of the US EPA that includes 15 minute averages by 2 PAH machines (one Indoors one Outdoors) for a full year of data. Already the data reveal that neighborhood exposures produce a huge mountain of PAH pollution in the evening in the burning months and that when there is no burning in the late spring there is almost no detectable neighborhood exposure to PAH.
Further analysis of woodstove incinerators reveals that because of the way wood is burned in them they produce more carcinogens. With an oxygen starved fire, they produce more PAH emissions than from a fireplace.. So the irony is that while the wood is burned more efficiently to create more heat the byproducts are far more carcinogenic. The fact is that wood is an inefficient and dirty fuel. On the energy ladder wood is one step above dung. Dr. Judith T. Zelikoff published research in 1994 showing that just one hour of exposure to woodsmoke altered immune defense mechanisms. Dr. Wm Pryor showed that the cancer causing free radicals from woodsmoke are chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. Even if there were not over 100 toxic chemicals including dioxin, in the smoke, there is evidence linking ingestion of asbestos sized particles such as those from woodsmoke with cancer.
We do not recommend new woodstoves as the solution to a dirty fuel. To learn more please visit our Internet home page at "http://BurningIssues.org".
Sincerely, Mary J. Rozenberg, President Burning Issues/Clean Air Revival
http://burningissues.org
Postscript
In Chemical Deception Sierra Books, 1991, Dr. Marc Lappe writing about Nasopharyngeal Cancer states that in addition to diet, virus, and genetic make up, there is a fourth factor in cancer risk for this disease.In his words "the inhalation of certain chemicals found in the environment, particularly in woodsmoke"..."What is clear is that synthetic substances generated either through food preparation or wood burning contribute far more to this tumor than does any unadulterated "natural" substance."
NOTE....Wood-smoke emissions are deadly!
Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, gasp
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks BY ROBERT MATAS
Environment Reporter
Vancouver
OVER the Christmas holidays, the sleepy Okanagan Valley town of Valley town was covered with a layer of sparkling white snow Above it, hanging invisibly in the stagnant air, was a second layer of nasty pollutants.
During this period, smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces laced the air with contaminants, some so small they could pass directly into lungs The weather was "a classical episode" of pollution from residential woodburning, says Peter Reid, a regional airquality meteorologist with the B. C. government.
The warmth of a blazing fire holds a special appeal for romantics, outdoor enthusiasts and golden retrievers, but recent research shows that its smoke poses serious health risks "It's not an insignificant problem especially for those with respiratory difficulties, says Scott McDonald, executive director of the B.C Lung Association.
Clean air activists have been saying exactly that for the past 15 years. A study published in 1980 by John A. Cooper, titled Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions and Its Implications, described more than 100 chemicals associated with wood smoke, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde gas, nitrogen oxide, tiny particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Many of the pollutants are similar to those produced by burning tobacco, and some U.S researchers say breathing in wood smoke is comparable to inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke.
The threat to human health comes from the fine particulate matter tiny particles 200 times smaller than raindrops Several epidemiological studies have concluded that inhaling wood smoke particulate matter increases the incidence, duration and severity of respiratory disease, striking hardest at children, the elderly and those with lung or heart disorders.
Concerns over wood smoke in the mid eighties put a damper on residential wood burning in some areas. In the Colorado ski town of Telluride, for example, several air-quality-conscious homeowners went so far as to put legal restrictions on their property deeds that would require their heirs never to allow "solid fuelburning devices. on the property But most of North America was cold to the idea of putting controls on wood burning smoke. The Seattle region created smoke police to hand out tickets to polluters However, a recommendation from Vancouver's medical health officer to impose a ban on all woodburning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction was dismissed by a local alderman as "imbecilic" and rejected by city council.
John Blatherwick, Vancouver's medical health officer, proposed the failed ban on fireplaces and stoves in 1991. But despite ridicule by city aldermen, Dr. Blatherwick still holds the same views, and feels vindicated by a report on the health effects of wood smoke that was completed two years later for B. C.'s health officer.
The report, by Sverre Vedal an associate professor with the University of British Columbia's lungdiseases research unit, said studies show that children living in = affected by wood smoke have lower levels of lung function during and following the wood burning season. It also said children have lower lung function the day after exposure to high concentrations of wood smoke.
Researchers have found that fine particulate matter lodges in and alters lung tissue, increasing the incidents of respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress and aggravating asthma, particularly for children. Only particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter can be inhaled into the lung without being intercepted by the nose or pharynx and only these smaller particles pose a threat to the respiratory system.
Dr. Vedal says that almost all particles generated by wood combustion are smaller than 10 micrometers. Information on physician visits "strongly suggests" that woodsmoke exposure can increase the risk of respiratory illness.
He also reported some good news: There is little evidence that exposure to wood smoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person. [ See rebuttal to this point by Mary J. Rozenberg]
He cautioned that any attempt to estimate the health effects of wood smoke involves many assumptions. Generally speaking, he said, air has fewer than 50 micrograms of tiny particulate matter per cubic metre. With this benchmark Dr. Vedal decided to calculate the impact of a 50 micrograms-percubicmetre increase in tiny particulate matter due to wood smoke. The results showed that 25 per cent of children in the exposed population experienced a slight decrease in lung function; twice as many children experienced lower respiratory symptoms; four times as many were absent from school; and emergency visits for asthma increased by 20 percent.
About 400,000 Canadian homes use wood as the primary heating fuel, and many more use fireplaces and wood stoves as supplementary sources of heat or because they enjoy the aesthetics of wood burning.
Environment Canada meteorologist Fred Conway says pollution from residential woodburning is not high on the agenda in Ontario. Wood is not used widely as a fuel in the large urban areas, he says, and the smoke disperses quickly in rural regions.
The Atlantic provinces are more dependent on wood for home heating than else where, but it is in British Columbia that smoke from residential woodburning poses the greatest threat to health. Here, inversions in weather patterns frequently warm the air on mountainsides, trapping cooler air and smoke at ground level in valleys and allowing the concentration of pollutants to build up.
B. C. Hydro has estimated that about 100,000 homes in B. C. use wood as the primary fuel; an additional 200,000 use fireplaces and woodburning stoves occasionally, Several valley communities have air quality problems on cold, clear nights.
Vernon, a city of 31,000 located at the confluence of two valleys has among the highest concentration of fine particulate matter in the province, especially during the cold months, but scientists are still searching for a conclusive link to a source. Analysis of air quality samples from 1992 to 1994. though, found that the air quality is poor for at least 61 days a year.
Mr. Reid and other researchers say more work on air monitoring is necessary before conclusions can be drawn about Vernon. Meanwhile, in other woodburning areas, the impact of wood smoke may be mitigated by new wood stoves and fireplaces that ensure more complete combustion, which prevents unburnt gases from going up the chimney. More people are also using dried wood, which creates fewer pollutants.
Cleanair activists, however, say the research results are enough to allow regulatory agencies to set policies dealing with chronic exposure to wood smoke. The smoke may not be the largest source of pollutants in the atmosphere, activists say, but wintertime woodburning produces them right under people's noses.
Mary J. Rozenberg, a former New York cellist whose health is affected by wood smoke, lives in Point Arena, Calif., and is using the Internet to mobilize U.S. public opinion to push for a ban on woodburning in fireplaces and stoves. Her homepage, Burning Issues, carries references to articles and technical papers, including one of her own on inhalation toxicology.
Her paper presented the results of a study of airborne particulates smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, which were measured in a residential neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area. The study showed that particulate concentrations increased most rapidly in the early evening, with the highest concentrations occurring after 11 p.m.
Ms. Rozenberg concluded that the particulates were generated by nonindustrial, nonautomotive sources, and the most likely source was residential woodburning.
She says that when she started her research in 1991, everyone said there was no problem and I was nuts. But when they saw the charts, they were shocked how big wood pollution is"
WOODSMOKE EMISSIONS
* Indicates a chemical also found in cigarette smoke
Normal alkanes
Cyclic di and triterpenoids:
dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin
Chlorinated dioxins
*Carbon monoxide
Methane
*Aldehydes: formaldehyde, *acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural
Substituted furans
Benzene
Alkyl benzenes: toluene
Acetic acid, Formic acid
*Nitrogen oxides
*Sulphur dioxide,
Methyl chloride
Napthalene
Substituted napthalenes
Oxygenated monoaromatics: guaiacol and derivatives *phenol and derivatives, syringol and derivatives, catechol and derivatives
*Particulate organic carbon
Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
fluorene, phenamhrene, anthracene, methylanthracenes, fluoranthene ,
*pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, *benzo(e)pyrene, *benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, ideno (1,2,3cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene *coronene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Trace elements: including sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Above table published with article
Rebuttal to claim that there is no link between wood smoke and cancer.
The Globe declined to publish this rebuttal.
The Globe and Mail Canada's national newspaper
"Ah, Lovely wood smoke Wheeze, gasp" 2/10/96 by Robert Matas, Environmental
Writer, Vancouver
Letter to the Editor:
This letter was written by Mary Rozenberg to the Globe in an attempt to correct a glaring error made by Dr. Sverre Vedal. Unfortunately, the letter was never published by the paper.
Thank you for the excellent article by Robert Matas "Ah, lovely wood smoke. Wheeze, Gasp" on Feb. 10,1996.The article quotes Dr. Sverre Vedal where he incorrectly states that "there is little evidence that exposure to woodsmoke at North American concentrations can be linked to an increased risk of cancer in a healthy person." We now have more than 30 references linking wood smoke to increased cancer risk.Due to similar publication times these were most likely not available to Dr. Vedal at the time of his report.
One of the papers stating that woodsmoke causes cancer at North American concentrations is Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles #91131.6 , 1991, by Dr.Joellen Lewtas of the US EPA. Dr. Lewtas states "These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a woodstove for heating, followed by driving a diesel car." She lists 14 papers on the subject in her bibliography.
In a study, Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation, Chest 1993 researchers indicated that "findings raise the possibility of a cause-andeffect relationship between longterm woodsmoke inhalation and lung cancer. Given the mutagenic and airway irritant effects described for wood smoke (4 references given) we believe that this possible deleterious relationship needs to be addressed in future studies regarding risk factors for lung cancer in nonsmokers."
I have measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for several weeks. PAH are know cancer causing agents The exposure to PAH from woodburning was longer in duration than that from traffic and on many days it was also higher in the amount of the concentration. My study was published in Inhalation Toxicology is being followed by a current study by Dr. Wayne Ott of the US EPA that includes 15 minute averages by 2 PAH machines (one Indoors one Outdoors) for a full year of data. Already the data reveal that neighborhood exposures produce a huge mountain of PAH pollution in the evening in the burning months and that when there is no burning in the late spring there is almost no detectable neighborhood exposure to PAH.
Further analysis of woodstove incinerators reveals that because of the way wood is burned in them they produce more carcinogens. With an oxygen starved fire, they produce more PAH emissions than from a fireplace.. So the irony is that while the wood is burned more efficiently to create more heat the byproducts are far more carcinogenic. The fact is that wood is an inefficient and dirty fuel. On the energy ladder wood is one step above dung. Dr. Judith T. Zelikoff published research in 1994 showing that just one hour of exposure to woodsmoke altered immune defense mechanisms. Dr. Wm Pryor showed that the cancer causing free radicals from woodsmoke are chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke. Even if there were not over 100 toxic chemicals including dioxin, in the smoke, there is evidence linking ingestion of asbestos sized particles such as those from woodsmoke with cancer.
We do not recommend new woodstoves as the solution to a dirty fuel. To learn more please visit our Internet home page at "http://BurningIssues.org".
Sincerely, Mary J. Rozenberg, President Burning Issues/Clean Air Revival
http://burningissues.org
Postscript
In Chemical Deception Sierra Books, 1991, Dr. Marc Lappe writing about Nasopharyngeal Cancer states that in addition to diet, virus, and genetic make up, there is a fourth factor in cancer risk for this disease.In his words "the inhalation of certain chemicals found in the environment, particularly in woodsmoke"..."What is clear is that synthetic substances generated either through food preparation or wood burning contribute far more to this tumor than does any unadulterated "natural" substance."
NOTE....Wood-smoke emissions are deadly!
Proposal would ban new wood-burning fireplaces-Southern California
San Jose Mercury News
Proposal to clean SoCal air would ban new wood-burning fireplaces
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/01/2007 05:36:22 AM PDT
LOS ANGELES- Wood-burning fireplaces would be banned in all new homes in much of Southern California under an anti-smog plan given initial approval by regional air quality regulators Friday.
The plan to help reduce harmful pollution and meet federal emissions standards also would bar wood-fueled blazes in all fireplaces on especially smoggy days.
The board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, meeting in Diamond Bar, approved a 2007 update of its regional anti-smog plan. In addition to regulating fireplaces, the wide-ranging plan seeks to reduce soot from diesel engines and to curb ozone smog levels in order to meet federal Clean Air Act standards by 2024.
Its measures involve commercial and residential developments, industrial facilities and such common equipment as restaurant charbroilers. The AQMD said the plan is expected to cost $2.3 billion annually, but benefits, mainly from reduced health effects, will amount to $14.6 billion annually.
The California Air Resources Board will consider the overall plan later this month. If it is approved it must then go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Another AQMD vote is scheduled for September to finalize the fireplace regulations.
There are an estimated 1.9 million homes with fireplaces in Southern California out of about 5 million total housing units, regulators said. Air district staffers say a daily reduction of 192 tons of nitrogen oxides, an ingredient in harmful particulate pollution, is needed across the region to meet the federal requirements, and that 7 tons of that could come from restrictions on fireplaces.
The fireplace ban for new homes would cover Los Angeles, Orange and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. There also could be about 20 days a year when the smog is so thick and the air so unhealthy that burning wood in all fireplaces would be prohibited, the AQMD estimated.
Regulators say unsafe levels of fine particulate pollution are responsible for 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400 hospitalizations a year in Southern California—leaving no target, including fireplaces, too small.
"Everyone must do their fair share to clean the air, from the largest business to the individual consumer," said Barry Wallerstein, the AQMD's executive officer. "Wallerstein said.
Proposal to clean SoCal air would ban new wood-burning fireplaces
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/01/2007 05:36:22 AM PDT
LOS ANGELES- Wood-burning fireplaces would be banned in all new homes in much of Southern California under an anti-smog plan given initial approval by regional air quality regulators Friday.
The plan to help reduce harmful pollution and meet federal emissions standards also would bar wood-fueled blazes in all fireplaces on especially smoggy days.
The board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, meeting in Diamond Bar, approved a 2007 update of its regional anti-smog plan. In addition to regulating fireplaces, the wide-ranging plan seeks to reduce soot from diesel engines and to curb ozone smog levels in order to meet federal Clean Air Act standards by 2024.
Its measures involve commercial and residential developments, industrial facilities and such common equipment as restaurant charbroilers. The AQMD said the plan is expected to cost $2.3 billion annually, but benefits, mainly from reduced health effects, will amount to $14.6 billion annually.
The California Air Resources Board will consider the overall plan later this month. If it is approved it must then go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Another AQMD vote is scheduled for September to finalize the fireplace regulations.
There are an estimated 1.9 million homes with fireplaces in Southern California out of about 5 million total housing units, regulators said. Air district staffers say a daily reduction of 192 tons of nitrogen oxides, an ingredient in harmful particulate pollution, is needed across the region to meet the federal requirements, and that 7 tons of that could come from restrictions on fireplaces.
The fireplace ban for new homes would cover Los Angeles, Orange and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. There also could be about 20 days a year when the smog is so thick and the air so unhealthy that burning wood in all fireplaces would be prohibited, the AQMD estimated.
Regulators say unsafe levels of fine particulate pollution are responsible for 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400 hospitalizations a year in Southern California—leaving no target, including fireplaces, too small.
"Everyone must do their fair share to clean the air, from the largest business to the individual consumer," said Barry Wallerstein, the AQMD's executive officer. "Wallerstein said.
Los Altos (CA) --No new wood burning fireplaces law
Published on December 24, 2003
Los Altos (CA) Town Crier
Tougher pollution laws may squelch holiday fireplace traditions
By Linda Taaffe / Town Crier Staff Writer
Tougher federal pollution standards could mean the end of one Christmas Day holiday tradition for some Santa Clara County residents - air district officials are urging residents to refrain from gathering around the glow of a cozy, crackling fire this season in order to keep air pollution at an acceptable level.
Officials said they anticipate issuing between seven to 10 "Spare the Air Tonight" advisories asking the public to voluntarily refrain from burning wood and driving between now and the end of January to meet the new air quality requirements.
This season's frequent rain has helped flush the atmosphere of pollutants. The air district has not had to issue advisories yet, a spokeswoman said Friday.
Wood burning and driving are the two major causes of air pollution in the winter time, especially during the holidays when people tend to gather and light a fire, a spokeswoman said.
A district report says burning wood causes up to 50 percent of the air pollution in Santa Clara County on some days. Every 1,000 woodburning fireplaces produces about 5 tons of pollution during the winter, she said. There are about 17,000 wood-burning fireplaces in the county.
Experts compared wood smoke to tobacco smoke. Wood smoke is toxic and especially dangerous for children and those with respiratory problems, said Jack Broadbent, air district CEO. "The worst kind of air pollution is created by burning wood. There is abundant health and scientific data on the dangers of exposure to the tiny particulates in wood smoke."
In Los Altos, the city introduced a wood-burning fireplace ban in 2001 after a resident allergic to wood smoke complained about the quality of air in her neighborhood.
As a result, no new wood-burning fireplaces may be built in Los Altos. The law is intended to reduce the toxic air pollutants.
http://www.latc.com/2003/12/24/news/news04.html
Los Altos (CA) Town Crier
Tougher pollution laws may squelch holiday fireplace traditions
By Linda Taaffe / Town Crier Staff Writer
Tougher federal pollution standards could mean the end of one Christmas Day holiday tradition for some Santa Clara County residents - air district officials are urging residents to refrain from gathering around the glow of a cozy, crackling fire this season in order to keep air pollution at an acceptable level.
Officials said they anticipate issuing between seven to 10 "Spare the Air Tonight" advisories asking the public to voluntarily refrain from burning wood and driving between now and the end of January to meet the new air quality requirements.
This season's frequent rain has helped flush the atmosphere of pollutants. The air district has not had to issue advisories yet, a spokeswoman said Friday.
Wood burning and driving are the two major causes of air pollution in the winter time, especially during the holidays when people tend to gather and light a fire, a spokeswoman said.
A district report says burning wood causes up to 50 percent of the air pollution in Santa Clara County on some days. Every 1,000 woodburning fireplaces produces about 5 tons of pollution during the winter, she said. There are about 17,000 wood-burning fireplaces in the county.
Experts compared wood smoke to tobacco smoke. Wood smoke is toxic and especially dangerous for children and those with respiratory problems, said Jack Broadbent, air district CEO. "The worst kind of air pollution is created by burning wood. There is abundant health and scientific data on the dangers of exposure to the tiny particulates in wood smoke."
In Los Altos, the city introduced a wood-burning fireplace ban in 2001 after a resident allergic to wood smoke complained about the quality of air in her neighborhood.
As a result, no new wood-burning fireplaces may be built in Los Altos. The law is intended to reduce the toxic air pollutants.
http://www.latc.com/2003/12/24/news/news04.html
24 year old ban on outside fire pits/bonfires
Monday, August 20, 2007
August 16, 2007
From: Polk County, Iowa
Jeremy Becker
Air Quality Engineer
Public Works Department
Air Quality Division
Polk County, Iowa
The fire pits/bonfires are prohibited under our open burning regulations, Chapter V - Air Pollution, Article III, Section 5-7.
ARTICLE III. INCINERATION AND OPEN BURNING
It shall be unlawful for any person to open burn or to permit open burning of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, landscape waste or other combustible material within the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, Clive, Windsor Heights, Urbandale, and Pleasant Hill from any source from and after September 21, 1983.
From: Polk County, Iowa
Jeremy Becker
Air Quality Engineer
Public Works Department
Air Quality Division
Polk County, Iowa
The fire pits/bonfires are prohibited under our open burning regulations, Chapter V - Air Pollution, Article III, Section 5-7.
ARTICLE III. INCINERATION AND OPEN BURNING
It shall be unlawful for any person to open burn or to permit open burning of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, landscape waste or other combustible material within the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, Clive, Windsor Heights, Urbandale, and Pleasant Hill from any source from and after September 21, 1983.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)